I'm LDS....let's learn from eachother.....

[bpbasilphx]

By faith, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and the laying on of hands by those in authority for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

**That right there excludesd any and all Mormonoids. They can offer neither health to the sinews nor marrow in the bone, because there is no power in their priesthood for themselves or anyone else forever.

And Pele Ale is, at best, a beer brewed by a soccer star.**

 

[J_C]

It is easy to get all “Jesusy” and talk about nothing else but Jesus. That is what many Christian activists who like wearing their “faith” on their sleeves like to do. zerinus

maybe you have unwittingly revealed something about mormon religion which at least partially answers my question about why mormons don’t seem to talk very much about Jesus.

Last night I read an article about Brigham Young. It said his last dying words were, “Joseph, Joseph, Joseph.” (if I reccal correctly, maybe he said it only once, but the point is his last words are not recorded as being, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.”)

The bible presents the Apostles as being “all Jesusy” as you say. I like Paul’s saying it in 1Cor2:

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

"for I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

I can agree with you that some people are so “Jesusy” that they are irritating having so oversimplified the faith that there is nothing there but Jesus and an improper understnanding of Him.

But some other people have gone too far in teh other direction with no personal knowledge of Jesus such that they know Him only as a character in a story rather than as a real presence in their lives. Based on what i am seeing and hearing, it appears that atl least some mormons fit this second description very well. Of course, so do some catholics and protestants but not for lack of teaching in the religions. my question is whether it is something structural of the religion with its teaching aobut the nature of God that causes mormons to have an indistinct knowldege of Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.

 

[LaMar]

Paul,
LaMar holds little sacred in the traditional sense of the word, but you who seem to be a faithful believing Catholic might reconsider the pleasure you take in the mocking of my faith.

Personally, I refuse to be offended by such things, but I will point out what I consider to be a lack of Christian charity when I see it. I am often surprised when Catholics who suffer so much mocking of that which they consider sacred are so willing to mock others.

Is this what you were all upset about?

I haven’t been to the temple in years and don’t even know if they still say “Pe Le El” any longer. They’ve recently had a series of revisions to this sacred, eternal and unchanging ceremony and much of the loonier stuff has been cut out. It wouldn’t surprise me if this had been dropped along with the groping under the shield.

In any event, you shouldn’t take any of this too seriously. Few of us who were born into it do. I remember comparing notes with my Grandpa in Provo, Utah about the experience, and we both laughed at how totally ridiculous it was. He told me the “Pay Lay Ale” part, complete with arm movements, before I ever went to my endowment session. I guess the penalties part didn’t phase him. He was also in the Stake Presidency at the time.

You might think he was blasphemous, but he was one of the most devout guys I knew, who never passed up an opportunity to do a good turn for someone else.

Many, many Catholics think the whole transsubstantiation thing (the idea that the wafer becomes the literal flesh of Jesus) is just as ridiculous as anything in the temple, but they still go through the motions because they like the tradition. It’s the same concept. Take it for what it really is, and don’t be offended when some of us have a more realistic view of the matter.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;3422832:

Paul,

LaMar holds little sacred in the traditional sense of the word, but you who seem to be a faithful believing Catholic might reconsider the pleasure you take in the mocking of my faith.

Personally, I refuse to be offended by such things, but I will point out what I consider to be a lack of Christian charity when I see it. I am often surprised when Catholics who suffer so much mocking of that which they consider sacred are so willing to mock others.

I would suggest you reconsider your response.
Charity, TOm

Is this what you were all upset about?

I haven’t been to the temple in years and don’t even know if they still say “Pe Le El” any longer. They’ve recently had a series of revisions to this sacred, eternal and unchanging ceremony and much of the loonier stuff has been cut out. It wouldn’t surprise me if this had been dropped along with the groping under the shield.

In any event, you shouldn’t take any of this too seriously. Few of us who were born into it do. I remember comparing notes with my Grandpa in Provo, Utah about the experience, and we both laughed at how totally ridiculous it was. He told me the “Pay Lay Ale” part, complete with arm movements, before I ever went to my endowment session. I guess the penalties part didn’t phase him. He was also in the Stake Presidency at the time.

You might think he was blasphemous, but he was one of the most devout guys I knew, who never passed up an opportunity to do a good turn for someone else.

Many, many Catholics think the whole transsubstantiation thing (the idea that the wafer becomes the literal flesh of Jesus) is just as ridiculous as anything in the temple, but they still go through the motions because they like the tradition. It’s the same concept. Take it for what it really is, and don’t be offended when some of us have a more realistic view of the matter.

I hope if it is not already clear to you, it will be now. I am not upset.
I doubt that “few of us who were born into it do” is quite accurate if it is intended to indicate that most members (convert or not) would find your mocking of the church and generally attitude toward the church (and Christ for that matter) to be a representation of how they feel or would purport themselves.

Now, what I am doing is trying to explain that Paul Dupree that as a believing Christian he might reconsider his mocking attitude. To you I would instead suggest that you exhibit a large volume of disrespect for those who you sit next to on Sunday (or maybe you actually believe that they think like you do).

Your bringing up of the Eucharist is almost scripted, thank you.
You see within the last few weeks, I have been thanked for the positive things I have said about the Catholic Eucharist on this forum. It is not that I believe what Catholics believe, but instead as one who holds things sacred, I respect what others hold sacred (and there is a specially place in my heart for the Eucharist).
You indicate by your comments that you believe many Catholic do not believe in the Eucharist and that mocking it as a “Catholic” or as a “non-Catholic” would be acceptable behavior that shouldn’t be offensive. You are wrong and Paul should not follow you even if it helps him attack the CoJCoLDS.

Many of your comments evidence that you are not a believing LDS (or a believing Christian really). This is fine, but I would hope that those who are not LDS and do not claim to be LDS will recognize that your presentation is skewed radically (at some points I scarcely think you are talking about the same church to which I belong).

Charity, TOm

 

[majick275]

I think you miss the eucharist and are trying to rationalize your way around that.

 

[kathielee]

Welcome Brother Dorsey. I’m Catholic and belief in Catholicism is as iron, so we could compair religions in a non-threatening way. If you don’t mind I’ll share a few catholic beliefs and what I think LDS believe. Then you can tell me if I have the correct view of LDS doctine.

1. We believe in God the Father who is the first Person of the Holy Trinity.
2. Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity, and he is our savior.
3. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity.
4. There is only one God who is the Holy Trinity.
5. Mormons worships God the Father because he is the god of this planet, but other planets have other gods equal to or even greater than God the Father.
6. The Mormon “God the Father” had a Father and was once a man on a planet who worshipped his own Father God. He was subsequently exalted to godhood. He has a physical, human body. 3. It is the hope of the male Mormon to progress to the point where he too will be a god like God the Father and be ruling over his own planet.
7. The Mormons have a saying: “What man is, God once was; what God is, man will become.”

IS THIS WHAT MORMONS BELIEVE?

Peace,

Ryan

I was watching a priest on EWTN who was a strong Mormon before converting and joining religious life. He explained many things that I had no idea were Mormon beliefs. As far as I can tell, it seems that Mormons are not Christians basically because the belief system is so incredibly wrong, it’s not even similar to any Christian faith. I am not saying that Mormons are not good people…no no, not saying that. kathie

 

[kathielee]

I think you miss the eucharist and are trying to rationalize your way around that.

If a Catholic really knows his/her faith as a Catholic, and have read the early Church fathers, and the Apostolic fathers…and other things, of course, I would find it hard to believe that someone would reject it and go to the Mormon faith. I can certainly understand their moving the Mormon faith if they were Catholic in name only and knew nothing about it. Rejecting the Holy Trinity would definitely scare me into the fear of eternal damnation as a sin against the Holy Spirit of which there is no forgiveness. Kathie

 

[LaMar]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your (expectedly venomous, and passive agressive) response.

For the second time, Paul DuPre hasn’t mocked anything.

In the eyes of many of our fellow Saints, I could spend all day smoking dope and consorting with prostitutes, and I would be more LDS than you can ever hope to be. That’s unfair, isn’t it? True though, and we both know it. Converts are often tolerated but not particularly well accepted. My hat’s off to you for managing to stay in the church despite the prevailing hostility. As I understand things, there’s a 12-15 percent retention rate in North America. The same attitude holds that our friend Paul will never really shed his Mormonism, no matter how many times he goes to mass. Catholicism doesn’t hold any water.

This is the sort of attitude that Mormons need to grow out of.

Mormons often laugh at what passes for “sacred not secret” among themselves, but they’ll become offended if the same behavior is performed in front of outsiders (as I’m doing here). Just another double standard, and another thing Mormons need to grow out of. Many Mormons see no harm in our missionaries defacing a Catholic shrine, but they get all offended when a fellow (like me) says “Pe Le El” on a Catholic forum. Good gawd almighty. Let’s grow a thicker skin already.

Now, what I am doing is trying to explain that Paul Dupree that as a believing Christian he might reconsider his mocking attitude. To you I would instead suggest that you exhibit a large volume of disrespect for those who you sit next to on Sunday (or maybe you actually believe that they think like you do).

TOm, you silly converso, I KNOW that they think like I do. I spent my whole life with them. Mormons tend to be above average in intelligence, education and general worldliness. You don’t think too many of us take any of those temple tokens literally, do you? LOL! LOL! LOL!

And why should we take this stuff seriously? I can accept it as being a metaphor, which teaches me greater lessons.

You’re right that I know little about the eucharist/communion or transsubstantiation. Never claimed to. I have my traditions, and Catholics have theirs. That’s as it should be. My main contention is one of respect and tolerance, rather than literal belief. Most of the Catholics on this forum (not all, but most) have shown themselves to be loving, forgiving people. Most of the Mormons here (not all, but most) have proven themselves to be ignorant nitwits who think it’s perfectly cool to damage statues, but will whine and cry when I do nothing more than chuckle at our own superstitions. How do you explain this?

Take Care,

LaMar

 

[Dymphna2008]

Mormons tend to put our own moral development to shame, as Christians we could learn quite a bit in what is “good” and/or “evil”. But that doesn’t mean they are, themselves Christians. Far from it; they focus more on Smith and Young than on the teaching of Jesus. The BoM actually plagiarized portions of the KJV Bible, if not its basic style. But since the Bible is common copyright, that’s no crime. What is a crime is re-interpretation of such basic passages to find in them what one wants to find, instead of what God needs you to recognize. Catholics need to be more aware of the Book on which they base sections of their faith. Of course, they are not the first to do this, no have or will they be the last.

 

[LaMar]

Mormons tend to put our own moral development to shame, as Christians we could learn quite a bit in what is “good” and/or “evil”. But that doesn’t mean they are, themselves Christians. Far from it; they focus more on Smith and Young than on the teaching of Jesus. The BoM actually plagiarized portions of the KJV Bible, if not its basic style. But since the Bible is common copyright, that’s no crime. What is a crime is re-interpretation of such basic passages to find in them what one wants to find, instead of what God needs you to recognize. Catholics need to be more aware of the Book on which they base sections of their faith. Of course, they are not the first to do this, no have or will they be the last.

Who defines what a “Christian” is?

I remember when the definition changed. I was very young and all of a sudden I was hearing talks (that’s mormonspeak for lectures or speeches in church) about “being Christians”. I was always told that we weren’t Christians, and knew some Christians from school, and knew that they were different from Mormons…but now we suddenly were Christians too. Very strange, in my first grade mind, that suddenly we were similar to these other people.

Mormons are Christians because they say they are Christians. All the same, they aren’t the same types of Christians that you are, and they haven’t been Christians for very long.

 

[PaulDupre]

I haven’t been to the temple in years and don’t even know if they still say “Pe Le El” any longer.

They don’t say it now. It is one of the things they took out recently.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

The bible presents the Apostles as being “all Jesusy” as you say. I like Paul’s saying it in 1Cor2:

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

"for I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

You mean like these verses in the Book of Mormon?:

2 Nephi 25:

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

Mosiah 3:

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

3 Nephi 11:

13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:

14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

Or this from the Doctrine and Covenants:

D&C 76:

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we [Joseph Smith] give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

I could have quoted lots more, but these will suffice. A word to the wise is sufficient.

my question is whether it is something structural of the religion with its teaching aobut the nature of God that causes mormons to have an indistinct knowldege of Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith.

Well, if you think that that is the problem, it should be easy to discover by looking at that “structure;” and the best way to do that is to go to the LDS Church with your young Mormon friends a few times and find out. That is easy enough to do.

Did you know that there is an LDS General Conference coming up in about three weeks time? That is the time when Mormons receive instruction directly from the top leadership of the Church. It lasts two days, Saturday and Sunday, and is relayed by satellite TV to LDS Churches. The broadcasts are also streamed on the Internet; but that can be a little erratic at Conference time because of the heavy demand on their bandwidth. That is an ideal way to find out what Mormons are taught by their leaders at this time. Ask your young Mormon friends to tell you the times and the details, or visit the Church’s website closer to that time.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

thank you z, i am most intrigued by the versus you quote from mosiah 15. but that is another issue i do not have time to explore today.

thank you also for the information about your general conference, i doubt I could allow myself to attend a mormon church for any reason but will ask my pastor if there is any canonical realson I should not, but even so i very much doubt that i could tolerate a mormon church, after all i cannot tolerate a baptist or methodist chruch either. not that i am intolerant of the fine people there but that i am so thoroughly catholic down to the marrow of my bones that anything which preaches against my faith gives me a rash.

i remember some talk here on this board from a recent general conference where the late president Hinkley said he was confused by the christian creed and could not understand it. i always wondered why anyone would be particularly confused by the creed since it is designed to be easily digestible by anyone with a will to digest it but i can understand that Pres Hinckly perhaps had reasons knonw only to himself that made understanding inconvenient. it is things like this that make me fear that spending a weekend watching such a package would be time wasted that could better be spent praying the rosary or on my knees before the Blessed Sacrament. time is very precious to me and i an loathe to waste it on listening to sales pitches. i am far more likely to invite my friends to come to Mass with ME and hear aobout Jesus in the ancient liturgy.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your (expectedly venomous, and passive agressive) response.
I am not sure where my comments were “venomous” or even “passive aggressive,” but perhaps the latter has some merit. In any case, I am sorry that I upset you.

I really do believe that you frequently describe a church that has little relation to the one I attend each Sunday. You seem to claim that there is a special “lifetime member” club to which I am not privy so perhaps that explains the radical disconnect, but I am dubious.

I really do believe that you mock the faith of those who sit next to you in the pew each Sunday (at least the converts) and this is something that you might reconsider.

I do disagree with you in that I saw Paul Dupree laugh at your temple content and contribute to this mocking. He who holds the Eucharist and a number of other things sacred should not IMO do this.

I do not think Majick’s point about my feelings on the Eucharist was intended to explain why I do not mock Catholic beliefs so, right or wrong, the church I belong to does not teach me that mocking of others beliefs is appropriate.

Being merely a convert in your eyes (or being a zealous convert as opposed to a wise lifetime member, or ???), I find myself unable to experientially claim that there are not two CoJCoLDS. For this reason, it would be interesting to see you at MADB since it seems to me that there are numerous lifetime members who embrace aspects of the church in a way that makes me look liberal.

To my knowledge those who have posted here and the church officially have explicitly stated that mocking Catholic beliefs is inappropriate. I do not believe I have a double standard here.

Anyway, I really do not intend to offend you. I think it is unfortunate that things said by you and others paint the CoJCoLDS in such a negative light people who believe in the Virgin birth think Mormonism is ridiculous. I can see things from the angle you look at these questions a little more clearly since you think it is all ridiculous. Still I would encourage more respect for us zealous converts who are not so wise as you.

Charity, TOm

 

[kathielee]

Nope, it was Jospeh Smith, Jr., the Prophet, who said that. Brigham Young said:

“The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the
inhabitants of the earth, being six feet in height. They dress very much
like the Quaker style and are quite general in style or fashion of
dress. They live to be very old; coming generally near a thousand years.
This is the description of them as given by Joseph [Smith] the Seer, and
he could see whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see”

If you check the JoD, you’ll also see that Brigham Young claimed that the sun is inhabited too.

As I read everything about what is being said, I am more afraid than ever! It sounds like a serious case of paganism and/or psychizophrenia. Either way, it truly gives me the willies and I now feel similar to having played the Ouija board…and I need to stop reading this and throw holy water all over the computer.

 

[Dymphna2008]

At the least, for Catholics, you could recite either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene. That’s the orthodox view accepted by most Protestants as well. I have read enough about and by Mormons to understand that they are a derivative of the evangelical fever that swept through the New England states, ca. 1820. They are certainly not anywhere near Catholic dogmatic relevance. Smith supposedly translated a book of “gold plates”, which, since it was returned to the “angel”, we cannot take a critical look at, in the same way the Bible is studied.

The Bible is taken seriously as the history and tradition of a people because we have references to that history made historically relevant to the archaeological basis of the rest of the ancient world. The Mormons claim to give credence to a book they won’t allow to be compared historically and critically to the era to which it claims to be relevant. Catholics have never changed their definition of what is dogmatically relevant; though others mistake its changes in tradition (not Tradition, which has always been as it was) and discipline for a wholesale reversal of positions and beliefs. And there’s the rub; it’s one of the reasons fundies pounce so readily, since they don’t understand their own history in any real depth.

So, in the end, there is a basis for defining what is Christian and what people want you to think is so but isn’t. For ages, Christians–Catholics, Protestants, defined heretics–have fought over who and what is a Christian. As Catholics, we know or at least we can reference catechetical teaching on what it means to be “Christian”, Protestants, for the most part, accept the same orthodox definitions, even if they reject Roman Catholic interpretations and applications of them. By my lights, from what they teach, Mormons are something other than Christian, even though they have a very morally upright stance in most things we define as Christian morality. But your moral stance is something that doesn’t need affirmation by the Church to be Christian. There are a lot of people not Christians who are far better exemplars of Christian morality.

Who defines what a “Christian” is?

I remember when the definition changed. I was very young and all of a sudden I was hearing talks (that’s mormonspeak for lectures or speeches in church) about “being Christians”. I was always told that we weren’t Christians, and knew some Christians from school, and knew that they were different from Mormons…but now we suddenly were Christians too. Very strange, in my first grade mind, that suddenly we were similar to these other people.

Mormons are Christians because they say they are Christians. All the same, they aren’t the same types of Christians that you are, and they haven’t been Christians for very long.

 

[LaMar]

Still I would encourage more respect for us zealous converts who are not so wise as you.

I actually have a lot more respect for the zealous convert than I do for the lifetime member who thinks his or her pedigree grants him or her a lifetime of indulgences. I made that pretty clear already, in two different articles, but I’ll repeat it just for clarity.

Let me give you a tip now, from an old Mormon to a new one.

When you go to your annual interview, you will be presented with a series of questions. They can be found here:

lds-mormon.com/new_temple_questions.shtml

I don’t know if you’ve ever studied post-structuralism. Look up Focault and Habermas if you haven’t, and read some of their work on the subject.

There is a reason that the authority is limited to what he can ask you, which is far beyond the understanding of Mormons like “WhyMe” and other simpleminded apologists. It has to do with the ideas of post-Modernism and post-Structuralism.

For example, when you are asked:
Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

I am sure you can answer, with a clear conscience in the affirmative.

Here’s the rub. So can I. And my bishop and stake president know, very well, that I define the words “Prophet” and “Sustain” very differently than you do. What is most important is my answer, and nobody is allowed to second guess either of us.

We can see things in different ways, and still accept one another as faithful Mormons. The prophet has made that clear, in that he’s the guy who keeps these rules in place, so that I can continue to hold a recommend and attend services next to you.

Don’t delude yourself with the idea that the true believers are the sum total of the church. They’re simply the most vocal and abrasive.

Take Care,

LaMar

 

[RebeccaJ]

I actually have a lot more respect for the zealous convert than I do for the lifetime member who thinks his or her pedigree grants him or her a lifetime of indulgences. I made that pretty clear already, in two different articles, but I’ll repeat it just for clarity.

Let me give you a tip now, from an old Mormon to a new one.

When you go to your annual interview, you will be presented with a series of questions. They can be found here:

lds-mormon.com/new_temple_questions.shtml

I don’t know if you’ve ever studied post-structuralism. Look up Focault and Habermas if you haven’t, and read some of their work on the subject.

There is a reason that the authority is limited to what he can ask you, which is far beyond the understanding of Mormons like “WhyMe” and other simpleminded apologists. It has to do with the ideas of post-Modernism and post-Structuralism.

For example, when you are asked:
Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

I am sure you can answer, with a clear conscience in the affirmative.

Here’s the rub. So can I. And my bishop and stake president know, very well, that I define the words “Prophet” and “Sustain” very differently than you do. What is most important is my answer, and nobody is allowed to second guess either of us.

We can see things in different ways, and still accept one another as faithful Mormons. The prophet has made that clear, in that he’s the guy who keeps these rules in place, so that I can continue to hold a recommend and attend services next to you.

Don’t delude yourself with the idea that the true believers are the sum total of the church. They’re simply the most vocal and abrasive.

Take Care,

LaMar

There’s that lack of Mormon orthodoxy again…get that fixed yet TOmNossor? Seems every Mormon is making up their own religion on the spot, inside the office of their ecclesiastical leaders.

LaMar, don’t be fooled TOm is not any more orthodox than you. He’s got his own religion going too.

 

[RebeccaJ]

LaMar is Polygamy Porter? Now I understand the problem. If true, Polygamy Porter seems to be morphing into various names since he has experienced a name change on another board. LaMar! Are you Polygamy Porter for the other board?

Perhaps Rebecca is referring to a different Polygamy Porter…

whyme, don’t get your panties in a bunch. We’re talking about beer here.

 

[TOmNossor]

We can see things in different ways, and still accept one another as faithful Mormons. The prophet has made that clear, in that he’s the guy who keeps these rules in place, so that I can continue to hold a recommend and attend services next to you.

Don’t delude yourself with the idea that the true believers are the sum total of the church. They’re simply the most vocal and abrasive.

I am a little familiar with Habermas and I know of what you speak.
I am also quite aware that in the pews with me are folks who believe in very different ways than I do. This is also fine with me.
I believe there is truth and there is error and it is not all subjective. I suspect I am significantly closer to the “simple minded” apologist in your book. This does not preclude me from seeing beauty in the Catholic Church. And whatever your view of Whyme is, he sees so much beauty in Catholicism he partakes of aspects that I as a LDS do not think I should. And yet I applaud Whyme in his exploration even if he ultimately is some kind of life-long straddler. We must all be true to the light God shines into our hearts.
So while I am a big tent fellow, I do believe that one should not pee in ones tent. Todd Compton’s book IMO is not peeing in the tent. Some of your stuff is IMO. That being said, you are the experienced member and I am the convert so I cannot fathom you will place a lot of stock in my thoughts.
Charity, TOm